IMPEACHMENT

IMPEACHMENT; The Debate on Articles of Impeachment Against President Clinton

Published: December 19, 1998

(Page 5 of 5)

All of us, including our public leaders, make mistakes. We're all subject to the same universal truth. We all fall short. To err is human; to forgive is divine. But to err repeatedly and willfully with impunity defies another universal truth, and that is the law of the harvest. In other words, you reap what you sow. And the pattern of deception and dishonesty that acts as a bodyguard to this President strikes at the very core of his ability to lead. It is a matter of trust.

Those close to the President say he can't admit to lying for legal, political and personal reasons. Fear of future prosecution and fear of political consequence gives explanation, albeit little excuse, for his denials. However, it is the President's assertion that he can't tell the truth for personal reasons that is most troubling. The President says he can't tell the truth because he doesn't believe he lied, and yet even the President's most ardent defenders acknowledge he lied under oath.

The President genuinely believes that he is telling the truth. We are left with one of two equally miserable realities: either the President chooses contempt and complete disregard for the truth, or his conscience is so diminished as to leave him unable to discern the truth from his lies. Both conclusions are ruinous to a constitutional republic whose leaders must command the trust of those they lead.

Our constitutional Government will stand the test of time, my friends, but only if we deal decisively with those who recklessly assault its foundations. Allegiance to our constitution leaves us with no alternative but to vote in favor of impeaching the President. . . .

Charles B. Rangel

Democrat of New York

My colleagues, I'm asking as many that can to reject the idea of voting for articles of impeachment, because 25 years ago, I had the opportunity to serve in this body when the question of impeachment was seriously taken up in 1974. And I can tell you that we may use the type of language that sounds as though we're working within the Constitution, but this procedure is not on the level. You cannot have a political procedure where Republicans line up on one side, like they're shooting fish in a barrel, and Democrats line up on the other side. We should not be talking about a Democratic President that for 10 years people have been trying to hound him out of office. Even before this deal goes down, where you already have the votes, there are people asking the President to resign from office.

What has this President done to cause so much hatred, so much animosity? And for those of you who say that this isn't about sex, I agree with you. This is about getting rid of the President of the United States. Whether it's the F.B.I. files, whether it's Whitewater, whether it's discussing something that Hillary has done, or whether it's Lewinsky, the whole idea is a lynch mob mentality that says this man has to go!

You say, ''Well, we have to vote our conscience here.'' Who determines the conscience? What arrogance can the Republicans have in this body to determine what the punishment should be for the President of the United States? Who has found the language in our Constitution to dictate that you can take this wonderful instrument that allowed this republic to survive for so long and twist it and bend it and say that we cannot have censure as an option to what you're trying to do the President, to this Congress and to the country? . . .

Charlie Norwood

Republican of Georgia

I'm going to vote for articles of impeachment. Now, I don't like that, I'm not happy about that, in fact, I'm deeply saddened by that. I didn't come here to impeach Bill Clinton or any other President, as I imagine most of you did not.

So maybe we might take one other look at one other consideration in these last hours, and Mr. Speaker, if you would allow me to quote President Clinton: ''There is no question that an admission of making false statements to Government officials and interfering with the F.B.I. is an impeachable offense.''

President Clinton went on to say, ''If a President of the United States ever lied to the American people, he should resign.''

Mr. Clinton was more than willing to apply these standards to a Republican President in 1974, as was the Democratic majority and a substantial portion of the then-Republican minority.

Mr. Clinton was correct in 1974. Why was he correct? Consider the questions and answers of recent months:

The question: ''Did you have sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky?'' And the answer, and I quote: ''You are free to infer that my testimony is that I did not have sexual relations as I understood this term to be defined,'' unquote. We now know the truth, but only because the blue dress says that he lies.

Consider the question and the answer, ''Did you authorize the transfer of missile technology to Red Chinese Army in exchange for campaign contributions?'' end quote. The answer: ''No one can prove there was a quid pro quo,'' end quote.

Consider this question and the answer: ''Did you order airstrikes against Iraq to influence these impeachment hearings?'' And the answer, and I quote, ''I don't believe any serious person would believe that Secretary Cohen, General Shelton, and the whole rest of the national security team would participate in such an action,'' end quote.

Do we have answers here that we or the world can trust? You can't tell when the President is telling the truth, and unfortunately he can't tell when he's lying. And that leads to a tremendous loss of trust. And when that person involved in that is the most powerful person in the world, it is dangerous. . . .

John Edward Porter

Republican of Illinois

I rise in support of the first, second and third articles of the resolution. Mr. Speaker, let me first commend my longtime friend and Illinois colleague, Henry Hyde, for his remarks. His words brought tears to my eyes and moved me as no words I have heard in my 25 years of legislative service. I thank him for reminding us all of the defining principles that form the bedrock of our free society and our system of government under the rule of law.

Now, regarding our fighting men and women in the gulf and the timing of this debate, ladies and gentlemen of the House, there was a large protest rally against impeachment on the west front of the Capitol yesterday afternoon. Many of the members of the minority party attended and spoke at that rally. It was the right of all to attend and to raise their voices.

No one would suggest that the exercise of democracy outside this chamber denigrated the men and women of our armed forces in combat in the Persian Gulf. But neither does this exercise of democracy inside this chamber show disrespect for them. Indeed, the processes of democracy and our freedoms are exactly what they are fighting to preserve.